March 10, 2007
I Believe In Freedom Of Speech, But…
… I also believe it should not be abused, and that those exercising this right have a responsibility to do so maturely and non-obstructively: Exercise your rights, but not to the extent that you use them as an excuse to harm others or to harm your country. To add to that, speech is one thing, physical action another. To vandalize, sabotage, throw things or spit on others, no matter what your differences of opinion, goes beyond speech and therefore only the most warped minds can use their right to freedom of speech as an excuse for the above. Pressing, abusive mobs are not a responsible example of freedom of speech; Peaceful demonstrations whose participants remain at the sidelines of whatever they are protesting are responsible examples of freedom of speech. When liberals destroy property or spit on American soldiers, they are guilty of, respectively, vandalism and assault.
If they want to lie to themselves and to others by saying they support our troops, or that they even maintain the right to call themselves Americans while shouting abusive names at these brave soldiers and Marines and protesting the deployment of reenforcements or of equipment that can save the lives of our troops in combat, fine — they are enjoying their right of free speech, even though they are being brazenly careless of the negative effects their ranting may have on the morale of our troops, or of the positive effects it may have for the morale of our enemy. After all, our political left has made it more than plain that they want us to lose in Iraq as they caused us to lose in Vietnam — by enduring defeat here at home rather than victory on the field of battle. And even though their words are treasonous, as long as they are merely words delivered free of obstruction, vandalism and assault, it is their right to speak them here in America.
When they become obstructive and in any other way physical, they cross the line.
After reading this, while gritting my teeth in frustration and anger, I long for the aggressive use of rubber bullets, fire hoses and helmeted cops with riot shields and long, heavy night sticks, if for no other reason than to give these wingnuts a taste of their own definition of Freedom of Speech.
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=636
March 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The last line say’s it all doesn’t it …. “Question their patriotism? You bet I do.” .. They don’t have any patriotism, rubber bullets, detention, etc. is the only answer.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
The constitution gives the right “to peaceably assemble”
That is not what these nuts are doing.
You have no constitutional right to form a violent mob.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Dang Seth! That’s totally infuriating! GRRRRRR! Michelle refers to them as “bullies.” She’s far too kind. They are traitors to America and should be treated as such. #!#&! and then some!
March 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
AB –
Liberals push the envelope wherever possible to see what they can get away with or provoke an extreme response (in hopes of being able to accuse the police of brutality), and even when they know they are going too far, they simply smirk and claim to be engaging in “civil disobedience”. Great fun, right? I have seen them subjecting private property (store windows, fences, etc) to their civil disobedience, I’ve seen them staging sit-ins in crosswalks at major intersections so that they were not only inconveniencing thousands of people, but preventing fire engines and ambulances from arriving at their destinations without having to go through time consuming reversals and detours.
I was right there during the rioting and looting by “peaceful” liberals in San Francisco back in 1972, standing at Powell and Geary, when one such “peaceful” liberal threw a brick that struck a tethered police horse in the leg (there were several standing in a line along the curb), and then-mayor Joe Alioto, who was standing nearby, shouted at the helmeted cops standing there with long riot sticks to “Go get ‘em!!!!“. What followed was nothing nice, but there were no more violent, abusive liberals making noise a couple of minutes later, enough of them having received a no-nonsense attitude adjustment that the rest had decided that they had other places to be, pronto.
When they begin victimizing people by destroying property, becoming in any way (including spitting or throwing bags of feces) or obstructing the flow of city traffic, I’m all for bringing in the water cannon, riot clubs and flex cuffs, maybe a wee bit of tear gas as a seasoning. After the “demonstration” debacle in 2003 when our troops invaded Iraq, I got a laugh from a San Francisco cop when I suggested bringing in whoever was in charge at Tienanmen Square as a police consultant.
Shoprat –
Totally true.
Unfortunately, liberals interpret the Constitution according to their convenience. They can be as abusive, violent or destructive as they wish, and if the police interfere with them, they immediately whine that the “Gestapo” is suppressing their right to freedom of speech.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Gayle –
I suppose that it’s good common sense that someone with my disposition toward these folks would never get elected to an office that would give him the final say in dealing with such liberal demonstrations (all they demonstrate is that they are not the intellectual elite they purport to be or to represent, rather they demonstrate that they are the bullies of Michelle’s definition and that, from a charactar POV, they are about 3 steps below pond scum). Behavior-wise, they make illiterate rednecks look like Rhodes scholars.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:38 am
For many demonstrators, it’s really all about them, starring on a stage of their design in a world of their creation, taking a stand against symbols divorced from analysis of the specific situation, which leads to the logical incoherence of the protesters described in the Malkin column you referenced above.
That is, why let nasty facts get in the way of a satisfying personal drama at the center of which you can star.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Civil Truth –
Good and probably totally accurate analysis.
This is as good a reason as any to deal harshly with such abusive crowds. Perhaps a couple of agonizing hits by rubber bullets while suffering under the influence of tear gas might encourage some of these people to behave a tad more civilly at future demonstrations they attend. Most children, if brought up properly, learn that indiscretions generally have penalties attached to them that must be paid — these demonstrators who cross the line, so to speak, were possibly not raised right; To learn that such penalties exist could only serve as a lesson that might, better late than never, teach them to act more responsibly.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ambien onine shop.
Ambien onine shop.